4.0 Tucannon Subbasin Aquatic Assessment 4.1 Selection of Focal Species Four aquatic species were chosen as focal for Tucannon Subbasin Planning: steelhead/rainbow trout Oncorhynchus mykiss; spring and fall Chinook Onchorynchus tshawytcha; bull trout Salvelinus confluentus. The criteria used to select focal species were the aspects of the Tucannon Subbasin ecosystem that the life histories represent; the Endangered Species Act (ESA) status; the cultural importance of the species and whether or not there was enough knowledge of the life history of the species to do an effective assessment. Those species of which too little was known to be included as focal at this time could be included as “species of interest” (see section 4.7). The WDFW suggested the above species as focal for the subbasin. These were then presented to the Nez Perce Tribe (NPT), the Confederated Tribes of the Umatilla Indian Reservation (CTUIR), The Columbia County Conservation District Board, the citizens advisory group, subbasin planning team and other interested agencies and entities. Consensus was achieved on their selection. Tucannon summer steelhead, spring/fall chinook and bull trout life histories intersect a broad range of the aquatic ecosystem. Spatially, the life histories of these four species cover the entire subbasin from the mouth to the headwaters. These species also occupy all levels of the water column including slack water, swift water and the hyporheic zone. Not only are they present but also the ability of these species to thrive is dependent on being able to successfully occupy these areas. Temporally, these species are present (or were assumed to be present in the past) at one lifestage or another throughout much of the watershed in all seasons. The ability of these species to be present at a particular time in a particular area is also key to the success of these species. Given the wide range of both the spatial and temporal aspects of these life histories it can be assumed that having habitat conditions that are appropriate for these three species will also produce conditions that allow for the prosperity of other aquatic life in the Tucannon Subbasin. The legal status of these species is important to the people of the Tucannon Subbasin. All three species are listed as threatened under the ESA (see sections 4.3.4.3; 4.4.4.3; 4.5.4.3; 4.6.4). Currently the citizens, governments, state and federal agencies and tribes are engaged in planning for the recovery of each of the salmonids through different processes. The intention of subbasin planning to address listed species within the subbasin supports the inclusion of the only four federally listed aquatic species within the subbasin as focal species. WDFW – Tucannon Assessment Page 1 DRAFT 03/27/04 4.2 Tucannon Subbasin Habitat Assessment Methods The Tucannon Subbasin habitat was assessed using the Ecosystem Diagnosis and Treatment (EDT) method; EDT is an analytical model relating habitat features and biological performance to support conservation and recovery planning (Lichatowich et al. 1995; Lestelle et al. 1996; Mobrand et al. 1997; Mobrand et al. 1998). It acts as an analytical framework that brings together information from empirical observation, local experts, and other models and analyses. The Information Structure and associated data categories are defined at three levels of organization. Together, these can be thought of as an information pyramid in which each level builds on information from the lower level (Figure 4-1). As we move up the through the three levels, we take an increasingly organism-centered view of the ecosystem. Levels 1 and 2 together characterize the environment, or ecosystem, as it can be described by different types of data. This provides the characterization of the environment needed to analyze biological performance for a species. The Level 3 category is a characterization of that same environment from a different perspective: “through the eyes of the focal species" (Mobrand et al. 1997). This category describes biological performance in relation to the state of the ecosystem described by the Level 2 ecological attributes. Umbrella attributes (classes of Level 3- Biometrics attributes) - "through the eyes of species" - short list Level 2-Ecological attributes Level 1- wide range of data types Figure 4-1. Data/information pyramid—information derived from supporting levels. The organization and flow of information begins with a wide range of environmental data (Level 1 data) that describe a watershed, including all of the various types of empirically based data available. These data include reports and unpublished data. Level 1 data exist in a variety of forms and pedigrees. The Level 1 information is then summarized or synthesized into a standardized set of attributes (Level 2 ecological attributes, see Table 4-3) that refine the basic description of the watershed. The Level 2 attributes are descriptors that specify physical and biological characteristics about the environment relevant to the derivation of the survival and habitat capacity factors for the specific species in Level 3. Definitions for Level 2 and Level 3 attributes can be found at WDFW – Tucannon Assessment Page 2 DRAFT 03/27/04 www.edthome.org , together with a matrix showing associations between the two levels and various life stages. The Level 2 attributes represent conclusions that characterize conditions in the watershed at specific locations, during a particular time of year (season or month), and for an associated management scenario. Hence an attribute value is an assumed conclusion by site, time of year, and scenario. These assumptions become operating hypotheses for these attributes under specific scenarios. Where Level 1 data are sufficient, these Level 2 conclusions can be derived through simple rules. However, in many cases, experts are needed to provide knowledge about geographic areas and attributes where Level 1 data are incomplete. Regardless of the means whereby Level 2 information is derived, the characterization it provides can be ground-truthed and monitored over time through an adaptive process. In the Tucannon Subbasin process, conclusions regarding Level 2 attribute conditions were derived using empirical data, where available, and data gaps were filled by a group of natural resource-related professionals with knowledge of the watersheds of interest. These individuals had expertise in such disciplines as fish habitat, hydrology, geomorphology, water quality, and civil engineering. To perform the assessment we first structured the entirety of the relevant geographic areas, including marine waters, into distinct habitat reaches. The Tucannon drainage was subdivided into the 58 stream segments by an assembled technical workgroup (Table 4- 1). We identified reaches on the basis of similarity of habitat features, drainage connectivity, and land use patterns. Such a detailed reach structure, however, is counterproductive for displaying results. Therefore the reaches were regrouped into the 20 larger “geographic areas” (Table 4-2). A set of standard habitat attributes and reach breaks developed by Mobrand Biometrics Incorporated (MBI) were used for the mainstem Columbia and Snake Rivers, estuarine, nearshore, and deepwater marine areas. We then assembled baseline information on habitat and human-use factors and fish life history patterns for the watersheds of interest. The task required that all reaches be completely characterized by rating the relevant environmental attributes. WDFW – Tucannon Assessment Page 3 DRAFT 03/27/04 Table 4-1. Stream reach codes, descriptions and river mile start/end points as defined in the Tucannon River for the Ecosystem Diagnosis and Treatment analysis method 2003. River miles are measured in Terrain Navigator®. Reach code Reach location/description Start RM End RM Tuc1 Tucannon, mouth to end of backwater area 0 0.72 Tuc2 Tucannon, end of backwater area to Kellogg Cr 0.72 4.44 Kel1 Kellogg Cr, mouth to steelhead access limit at forks 0 1.29 Tuc3 Tucannon, Kellogg Cr to Starbuck Dam 4.44 5.47 Tuc4 Starbuck Dam (Obstruction) OBSTRUCTION Tuc5 Tucannon, Starbuck Dam to Smith Hollow Cr 5.47 5.8 Smith Smith Hollow Cr, mouth to forks 0 1.05 Tuc6 Tucannon R, Smith Hollow Cr to Pataha Cr 5.8 11.96 Pat1 Pataha Cr, mouth to Delaney (261) culvert 0 1.26 Pat2(Delaney Delaney culvert (Obstruction) culvert) OBSTRUCTION Pat3 Pataha, Delaney culvert to Dodge Bridge 1.26 10.83 Pat4 Dodge Bridge (Obstruction) OBSTRUCTION Pat5 Pataha Cr, Dodge Br to Tatman Grade Road 10.83 20.02 Pat6 Pataha Cr, Tatman Rd to 3rd St Bridge in Pomeroy. 20.02 24.53 Pat7 Pataha Cr, 3rd St Br to 20th St Bridge 24.53 25.75 Pat8 20th St sewer line (obstruction) OBSTRUCTION Pat9 Pataha Cr, 20th St Obstruction to Bihmaier Cr 25.75 27.6 Bih1 Bihmaier Gulch Cr, mouth to dam site 0 1.08 Bih2 Bihmaier dam OBSTRUCTION Bih3 Bihmaier Gulch Cr, dam to Hutchin's Hill Cr 1.08 1.22 Hutch Hutchin's Hill Cr, mouth to spring source 0 0.28 Bih4 Bihmaier Cr, Hutchin's Hill Cr to source at spring. 1.22 1.66 Pat10 Pataha Cr, Bihmaier Cr to Davis Bedrock shelf. 27.6 35.22 Pat11(Davis shelf) Davis shelf (Obstruction) OBSTRUCTION Pat12 Pataha Cr, Davis shelf to Dry Pataha Cr 35.22 42.66 DryPat1 Dry Pataha Cr, mouth to old dam 0 0.36 DryPat2(dam) Dry Pataha Cr Dam OBSTRUCTION DryPat3 Dry Pataha Dam to steelhead access limit 0.36 3.45 Pat13 Pataha Cr, Dry Pataha to Iron Springs CG Pond and outlet 42.66 48.39 IronSpr Iron Springs Pond and outlet , mouth to 0 0.06 WDFW – Tucannon Assessment Page 4 DRAFT 03/27/04